crm_update_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, and output, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no semantic information about the three parameters (objectType, objectId, properties) beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' enums represent, how 'objectId' is formatted, or what 'properties' should contain, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an existing CRM object' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('CRM object'), but it's vague about what constitutes a CRM object and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, or crm_batch_update_objects. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., crm_update_company for companies, crm_batch_update_objects for multiple updates). The description implies it's for updating existing objects, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.